New York Times Current History: The European War from the Beginning to March 1915, Vol 1, No. 2 eBook

Proclaim that for you the days of plunder
and butchery have gone by; send messages of peace
and fraternity to your fellows who have less
liberty than you. Down with class rule! Down
with the rule of brute force! Down with
war! Up with the peaceful rule of the people!
(Signed on behalf of the British Section of the International
Socialist Bureau,)

J. KEIR HARDIE,

ARTHUR HENDERSON.

* * * *
*

KEIR HARDIE’S QUESTIONS.

Directed at Sir Edward Grey, British Minister for
Foreign Affairs, in House of Commons, Aug. 27.

Mr. Keir Hardie (Merthyr Tydvil, Lab.) asked
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the suggestions
for a peace settlement made by the German Ambassador,
["White Paper,” Page 66, Item No. 123,] together
with his invitation to the Foreign Secretary to put
forward proposals of his own which would be acceptable
as a basis for neutrality, were submitted to and considered
by the Cabinet; and, if not, why proposals involving
such far-reaching possibilities were thus rejected.

Sir E. Grey (Northumberland, Berwick)—­These
were personal suggestions made by the Ambassador on
Aug. 1, and without authority to alter the conditions
of neutrality proposed to us by the German Chancellor
in No. 85 in the “White Paper”—­Miscellaneous,
No. 6, [1914.]

The Cabinet did, however, consider most carefully
the next morning—­that is, Sunday, Aug.
2—­the conditions on which we could remain
neutral, and came to the conclusion that respect for
the neutrality of Belgium must be one of these conditions.
["Hear, hear!”] The German Chancellor had already
been told on July 30 that we could not bargain that
way.

On Monday, Aug. 3, I made a statement in the House
accordingly. I had seen the German Ambassador
again at his own request on Monday, and he urged me
most strongly, though he said that he did not know
the plans of the German military authorities, not
to make the neutrality of Belgium one of our conditions
when I spoke in the House. It was a day of great
pressure, for we had another Cabinet in the morning,
and I had no time to record the conversation, and
therefore it does not appear in the “White Paper”;
but it was impossible to withdraw that condition [loud
cheers] without becoming a consenting party to the
violation of the treaty, and subsequently to a German
attack on Belgium.

After I spoke in the House we made to the German Government
the communication described in No. 153 in the “White
Paper” about the neutrality of Belgium.
Sir Edward Goschen’s report of the reply to that
communication had not been received when the “White
Paper” was printed and laid. It will be
laid before Parliament to complete the “White
Paper.”

I have been asked why I did not refer to No. 123 in
the “White Paper” when I spoke in the
House on Aug. 3. If I had referred to suggestions
to us as to conditions of neutrality I must have referred
to No. 85, the proposals made, not personally by the
Ambassador, but officially by the German Chancellor,
which were so condemned by the Prime Minister subsequently,
and this would have made the case against the German
Government much stronger than I did make it in my speech.
["Hear, hear!”] I deliberately refrained from
doing that then.